[Cyberyeti]

An interesting hand appeared from a judgment point of view at the weekend, interested to see what people do.

---

big hand deals, teams.

I don't really mind whether we reach the slam or not, but several decisions.

You kick off with 2♣, LHO bids 2♠ and partner passes showing a single negative type hand 4-7 ish.

Now 3♦ or 3♥ ?

I chose 3♥, LHO bid 3♠, partner bid 4♥, give up or have another go ?

I opted to ask keycards, partner shows none, now give up or ask for the Q ?

I asked for the Q, am I more likely to have 5 or 6 here, so is Jxxx enough to show the Q ? make my small diamond a small heart, I bid the same way and you probably want to show it. Partner entirely reasonably didn't show the Q, possibly coloured by the fact that he felt we were winning the match anyway and it wasn't going to be bid at the other table, 5♥+1 on a 2-2 break for a flat board.

[Antrax]

Can I ask why not open 1♥? You can reasonably expect someone to hold spades so it won't go AP, no?

[Cyberyeti]

Antrax, on 2014-March-13, 03:56, said:

Can I ask why not open 1♥? You can reasonably expect someone to hold spades so it won't go AP, no?

It's a 25 count that makes game opposite any yarborough, now I know I open some strong 1 of a suits, but this one is too big even for me. If I open 1♥, partner will hold xxxx, K, 10xxxx, xxx and I'll play 1♥ with 7♦ on.

[rhm]

Antrax, on 2014-March-13, 03:56, said:

Can I ask why not open 1♥? You can reasonably expect someone to hold spades so it won't go AP, no?

Can I ask why you think you need a 2♣ bid at all?
Apparently the right requirements for your 2♣ bid will turn up about every second leap year.
You are better off accepting a loss once every second leap year and use 2♣ for something which has a chance to come up every fortnight.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-13, 03:16, said:

An interesting hand appeared from a judgment point of view at the weekend, interested to see what people do.

---

big hand deals, teams.

Now 3♦ or 3♥ ?

A bidding approach:

If you resolve all those decisions, where you do not know whether to choose a major over a minor, in favor of the major you will not be right every time.
However, there is a reason why some suits are called majors and some minors
And last but not least it is usually more economical bidding a major first and then a minor than the other way round.

Got it?

Rainer Herrmann

[Antrax]

rhm, on 2014-March-13, 04:26, said:

Can I ask why you think you need a 2♣ bid at all?

Single-suited hands with lots of HCPs, balanced hands too strong for 2NT, many-suiters without short spades.

[Trinidad]

I basically would have copied Cyberyeti's approach, but I would not have asked for keycards. I would have bid 5♥ instead.

South is really borderline whether he should accept, which is fitting since the slam is borderline to make.

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

rhm, on 2014-March-13, 04:35, said:

A bidding approach:

If you resolve all those decisions, where you do not know whether to choose a major over a minor, in favor of the major you will not be right every time.
However, there is a reason why some suits are called majors and some minors
And last but not least it is usually more economical bidding a major first and then a minor than the other way round.

Got it?

Rainer Herrmann

I understand all of this, there is also a principle of not bidding bad suits on good hands and they conflict, hence why I thought it was interesting.

[campboy]

What would 2♣ (2♠) pass (pass) 3♠ show?

[Cyberyeti]

campboy, on 2014-March-13, 06:10, said:

What would 2♣ (2♠) pass (pass) 3♠ show?

Something massive, not clear what, prob bid 3N with a stop (maybe xx, AK, AKQJxx, AQx where 3N may be better than 5♦ opposite ♠QJx/♥Qxx and out or similar), not clear you're well placed after 2♣-(2♠)-P-P-3♠-P-4♣ which is what I suspect would happen, I don't think it's Michaelsish.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I strongly dislike opening 2♣ with two suited hands, however, I consider this a pretty clear 2♣ opening.

Your hand has improved enormously after the 3♠ rebid.
You're sitting on a 25 count, partner has promised a heart fit and 4-7 HCP AND LHO looks to be holding the KQ of Spades which are useless for defense.

Personally, I'd ask for Keycards. I would probably bid 6♥ if partner denied the King...

[Cyberyeti]

hrothgar, on 2014-March-13, 07:07, said:

FWIW, I strongly dislike opening 2♣ with two suited hands, however, I consider this a pretty clear 2♣ opening.

Your hand has improved enormously after the 3♠ rebid.
You're sitting on a 25 count, partner has promised a heart fit and 4-7 HCP AND LHO looks to be holding the KQ of Spades which are useless for defense.

Personally, I'd ask for Keycards. I would probably bid 6♥ if partner denied the King...

Do you really want to be in 6♥ opposite the same hand with a heart less and a diamond more ?

[Fluffy]

partner is 4-7 we either win 6♥ or 6♣, is there a way to ask him to introduce his clubs? maybe 5NT?.

I think all you said in the OP is right, and partner should show ♥Q for sure with a 4th trump the way I play.

I do not open 2 suiters with 2♣ normally, so 3♥ will be 6+ ♥ 85% of the time.

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on 2014-March-13, 07:27, said:

I do not open 2 suiters with 2♣ normally, so 3♥ will be 6+ ♥ 85% of the time.

I agree with this, but oddly in the same event, I also picked up Qx, A, AKQxx, AKJxx which I felt I had to open 2♣ also (that hand has a play problem attached in N/B section).

[mfa1010]

I think responder should bid 6♥ after the queen-ask on the basis that opener might have six or the actual holding, where slam is 65%.

[johnu]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-March-13, 03:16, said:

You kick off with 2♣, LHO bids 2♠ and partner passes showing a single negative type hand 4-7 ish.

What does partner do with 0-3?

[Cyberyeti]

johnu, on 2014-March-13, 09:51, said:

What does partner do with 0-3?

Double

[Lovera]

Esiste sull ' apertura di 2 fIori per mani di questo tipo la convenzione ideata da Terence Reese che porta il suo nome (Reese ) che serve ad indicare il possesso di un colore autonomo (qui Quadri)

[Zelandakh]

Not that it makes reaching slam easier but I think you should downgrade this 4 count to 3 for the purposes of the initial response - QJ + J is often worse than a king here. After the initial pass it seems clear for Opener to carry on.

[Cyberyeti]

Zelandakh, on 2014-March-14, 04:03, said:

Not that it makes reaching slam easier but I think you should downgrade this 4 count to 3 for the purposes of the initial response - QJ + J is often worse than a king here. After the initial pass it seems clear for Opener to carry on.

A suit that can play a slam opposite Kx while adding 3.5 tricks to what partner thought he had is a big asset opposite a 2♣ opener. I would agree with downgrading QJ/J normally, but this hand is too good IMO.